DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 35 USC 119(a)-(d) or (f).
Information Disclosure Statement
Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) submitted 10/31/2023 and 2/13/2025 have been received and considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
All “wherein” clauses are given patentable weight unless otherwise noted. Please see MPEP 2111.04 regarding optional claim language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chopra et al. US-20200358109-A1 (hereinafter “Chopra”) in view of Federici et al. US-20180342760-A1 (hereinafter “Federici”), Schroder, "Mechanisms of Photonic Curing™: Processing High Temperature Films on Low Temperature Substrates," January 2011 (hereinafter “Schroder”), and Schroder et al. US-20080020304-A1 (hereinafter “Schroder ‘304”).
Regarding Claims 1 and 5, Chopra discloses a method for producing a current collector for a battery 100 in Figs. 1-2 and 4 (see abstract and paragraph [0001]), comprising:
providing a substrate 102 formed of a planar battery packaging material in Figs. 1-2 (see paragraphs [0003]-[0004], [0017]-[0027], and [0032]),
producing on a predefined area of the substrate 102 a current collector layer 104 by a printing technique, the current collector layer 104 comprising particles of an electrically conductive material (silver) in Figs. 1-2 and 4 (see paragraphs [0028]-[0030], [0032], [0034], and [0044]-[0053]).
Chopra is silent on curing the current collector layer by illuminating the layer with a light source and forming the current collector using low temperature sintering in the form of photonic sintering and wherein the curing step is performed at room temperature.
However, in the same field of endeavor of producing a current collector for a battery (see abstract), Federici discloses a method for producing a current collector for a battery in Figs. 63-68B (see abstract and paragraphs [0002], [0014], [0135], and [0250]), comprising:
producing on a predefined area of a substrate a current collector layer by a printing technique, the current collector layer comprising particles of an electrically conductive material (metals to form a conductive film) in Figs. 63-68B (see paragraphs [0135], [0142]-[0145], [0155], and [0168]-[0170]),
curing the current collector layer by illuminating the layer with a light source (xenon flash lamp), thereby obtaining the current collector in Fig. 26 (see paragraphs [0131]-[0132])
wherein the curing is performed by low temperature sintering at room temperature (sintering operated at room temperature) (meeting Claim 5) (see paragraphs [0131]-[0132]), and
wherein the curing is performed by photonic sintering (see paragraphs [0131]-[0132]).
Fedrici further discloses the advantages of photonic sintering are it can be operated at room temperature in a short time and achieve roll to roll processing which makes it an excellent sintering method in industrial production (see paragraphs [0131]-[0132]). A skilled artisan would as such recognize this as an appropriate way of curing the current collector layer of Chopra.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Chopra wherein the current collector is formed using low temperature sintering in the form of photonic sintering and wherein the curing step is performed at room temperature, as disclosed by Fedrici, in order to operate at room temperature in a short time and achieve roll to roll processing.
Chopra and Fedrici are silent on wherein the curing is performed by a pulsed photonic sintering process, applying the following parameters: a length of the pulses being between 1 and 20 ms, a pulse frequency (number of pulses per second) being between 200 and 800, a pulse sintering voltage being between 1 kV and 4 kV, and a duration of the photonic sintering process being between 0.1 seconds and 5 seconds.
However, in the same field of endeavor of photonic sintering (photonic curing) (see Page 1, Abstract and Section 1), Schroder discloses example process variables and curing conditions relating to photonic sintering that can be optimized to achieve optimal high temperature processing of a thin film on a low temperature substrate (see Pages 1-4, Sections 1-4, Figure 1, and Table 1). These variables can include rapid pulsing of light (pulse frequency), duration tp (length of pulses), processing time (duration of the photonic sintering process), and energy/power (voltage) (see Pages 2-4, Sections 2-3). As taught by Schroder, process limitations can be remedied by controlling the aforementioned process variables (for example, too much radiant power will result in a cohesive failure of the film and can be remedied by predrying with lower power pulses of light and lowering the power and increasing the pulse length of the processing and substrate warping can be remedied by applying the appropriate the amount of energy) (see Page 3, Section 2.2 and Table 1). Schroder additionally discloses if the light is pulsed rapidly and synchronized to a moving web, it can replace a large festooning oven in a space of only a few feet and cure materials quickly (see Page 1, Section 1).
Additionally, in the same field of endeavor of photonic curing (see paragraph [0015]), Schroder ‘304 discloses proper application of a pulsed photonic source can process metal nanoparticles while minimally affecting the substrate (such as using the appropriate pulse length, which may be about 2.3 ms, to achieve minimal or undetectable damage of the substrate and adjusting energy and pulse duration to allow optimum curing without substrate damage depending on the uncured ink emissivity, material properties, and ink thickness and the effect of multiple pulses) in Figs. 1 and 6 (see paragraphs [0018]-[0020], [0051]-[0057], [0075]-[0076], and [0080]).
As such, the process variables of photonic sintering are result effective variables and the discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP § 2144.05, II.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Chopra wherein the curing is performed by a pulsed photonic sintering process, applying the following parameters: a length of the pulses being between 1 and 20 ms, a pulse frequency (number of pulses per second) being between 200 and 800, a pulse sintering voltage being between 1 kV and 4 kV, and a duration of the photonic sintering process being between 0.1 seconds and 5 seconds, as disclosed by Schroder and Schroder ‘304, in order to achieve optimal high temperature processing of a thin film on a low temperature substrate and cure metals quickly.
Regarding Claim 2, modified Chopra discloses method according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Chopra further discloses wherein the current collector layer is produced by a printing technique of screen printing or 3D printing (see paragraphs [0001]-[0005], [0030], and [0052]).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Chopra discloses method according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Chopra and Federici are silent on wherein an energy input applied during the photonic sintering step is between 0.5 J/cm2 and 4 J/cm2.
However, Schroder discloses a photonic curing (photonic sintering) process of a silver film using an energy input of 1 J/cm2 to sinter the metal (see Section 1 Introduction and Fig. 1 on Pages 1-2). This value falls within and therefore anticipates the claimed range of an energy input applied during the photonic sintering step being between 0.5 J/cm2 and 4 J/cm2. A skilled artisan would also recognize this as an appropriate energy amount to use in the photonic sintering of metals, such as the metal used in forming the current collector of Chopra.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Chopra wherein an energy input applied during the photonic sintering step is between 0.5 J/cm2 and 4 J/cm2, as disclosed by Schroder, in order to appropriately cure the metal of the current collector layer.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Chopra discloses method according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Chopra further is silent on wherein the current collector layer obtained by printing or spray deposition has a thickness between 10 μm and 20 μm.
However, Federici discloses the whole thickness of the thin film battery is below 150 μm (50 μm for each Kapton® substrate, 10 μm for the nickel conductive layer) (see paragraph [0269]). The thickness of the current collector layer of 10 μm overlaps the endpoint and renders obvious the claimed range of the current collector layer having a thickness between 10 μm and 20 μm. A skilled artisan would recognize this as an appropriate thickness of the current collector layer to achieve a thin film battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Chopra wherein the current collector layer obtained by printing or spray deposition has a thickness between 10 μm and 20 μm, as disclosed by Fedrici, in order to achieve a thin film battery.
Regarding Claim 7, modified Chopra discloses method according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above). Chopra further discloses a method for producing a battery 100, comprising producing a first and a second current collector 104/112 by applying the method according to the aforementioned claim 1 in Figs. 1-2 and 4 (see paragraphs [0027]-[0028] and [0044]), followed by:
producing a first electrode (cathode layer) 106 on the first current collector 104, producing a second electrode (anode layer) 110 on the second current collector 112 in Figs. 1-2 and 4 (see paragraphs [0028]-[0031]),
producing a separator 108 material comprising an electrolyte on the first and/or the second electrode (see paragraphs [0031] and [0036]), and
assembling the first and second electrodes and current collectors and sealing packaging materials used in the production of the current collectors 104/112, to thereby obtain the battery 100 in Figs. 1-2 (see paragraphs [0044]-[0056] and [0069]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chopra in view of Federici, Schroder, and Scrhoder ‘304 as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Saakes et al. US-6500585-B1 (hereinafter “Saakes”).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Chopra discloses method according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Modified Chopra is silent on pre-treating the substrate by a surface activation treatment.
However, in the same field of endeavor of surface activating treatments of substrates in batteries (see abstract), Saakes discloses performing a surface activating treatment on a substrate, and thereafter applying a metal film to the main surfaces of the substrate to improve adhesion of the metal (see Column 9 Lines 9-18, Column 10 Lines 15-58, and Claims 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Chopra by pre-treating the substrate by a surface activation treatment, as disclosed by Saakes, in order to improve adhesion.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chopra in view of Federici.
Regarding Claim 8, Chopra discloses a battery comprising a planar packaging substrate comprising a first and a second current collector 104/112, wherein the current collectors are obtained by printing of current collector layers on the substrate 102/104 in Figs. 1-2 (see paragraphs [0022]-[0030], [0032], and [0044]-[0053]).
Chopra is silent on curing the current collector layers.
However, Federici discloses a method for producing a current collector for a battery, comprising: producing on a predefined area of a substrate a current collector layer by a printing technique, the current collector layer comprising particles of an electrically conductive material (to form a conductive film), and curing the current collector layer via photonic sintering by illuminating the layer with a light source (xenon flash lamp), thereby obtaining the current collector in in Figs. 26 and 63-68B (see abstract and paragraphs [0014], [0131]-[0132], [0135], [0142]-[0145], [0155], [0168]-[0170], and [0250]).
Fedrici further discloses the advantages of photonic sintering are it can be operated at room temperature in a short time and achieve roll to roll processing which makes it an excellent sintering method in industrial production (see paragraphs [0131]-[0132]). A skilled artisan would recognize this as an appropriate way to form the current collector.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of Chopra by curing the current collector layers, as disclosed by Federici, in order to appropriately form the current collector.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chopra in view of Federici and Schroder ‘304.
Regarding Claim 9, Chopra discloses a battery comprising a planar packaging substrate comprising a first and a second current collector 104/112 wherein the current collectors are formed of an electrically conductive material (silver) in Figs. 1-2 (see paragraphs [0022]-[0030], [0032], and [0044]-[0053]).
Chopra is silent on curing the current collectors.
However, Federici discloses a method for producing a current collector for a battery, comprising: producing on a predefined area of a substrate a current collector layer by a printing technique, the current collector layer comprising particles of an electrically conductive material (to form a conductive film), and curing the current collector layer via photonic sintering by illuminating the layer with a light source (xenon flash lamp), thereby obtaining the current collector in in Figs. 26 and 63-68B (see abstract and paragraphs [0014], [0131]-[0132], [0135], [0142]-[0145], [0155], [0168]-[0170], and [0250]).
Fedrici further discloses the advantages of photonic sintering are it can be operated at room temperature in a short time and achieve roll to roll processing which makes it an excellent sintering method in industrial production (see paragraphs [0131]-[0132]). A skilled artisan would as such recognize this as an appropriate way of curing the current collector layer of Chopra.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Chopra wherein the current collector is cured via photonic sintering as disclosed by Fedrici, in order to operate at room temperature in a short time and achieve roll to roll processing.
Chopra and Fedrici silent on wherein a resistivity of the current collectors is higher than a bulk resistivity of the material.
However, Schroder ‘304 discloses proper application of a pulsed photonic source can process metal nanoparticles while minimally affecting the substrate in Figs. 1 and 6 (see paragraphs [0018]-[0020] and [0051]-[0057]). Also Schroder ‘304 discloses a resistivity of the cured metal is higher than a bulk resistivity of the material, and the material has good adhesion and long-term conductivity (see paragraphs [0029] and [0064] and Example 13C). As such, a skilled artisan is capable of using the teaching of Schroder ‘304 of photonic curing in the battery of Chopra such that a resistivity of the current collectors higher than a bulk resistivity of the material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of Chopra wherein a resistivity of the current collectors is higher than a bulk resistivity of the material, as disclosed by Schroder, in order to properly cure the metal via photonic sintering and achieve good adhesion and long-term conductivity.
Regarding Claim 10, modified Chopra discloses the battery according to claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9 above).
Chopra is silent on wherein the resistivity of the current collectors is between 2 and 100 times the bulk resistivity.
However, Schroder ‘304 discloses when using proper photonic sintering parameters, the photonic cure sample obtained a resistivity approximately 5x bulk silver resistivity and good adhesion and long-term conductivity (see paragraphs [0018]-[0020], [0029], [0051]-[0057], and [0064] and Example 13C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of Chopra wherein the resistivity of the current collectors is between 2 and 100 times the bulk resistivity, as disclosed by Scroder, in order to properly cure the metal via photonic sintering and achieve good adhesion and long-term conductivity.
Chopra and Schroder are silent on wherein a thickness of the current collectors is between 2 μm and 50 μm.
However, Federici discloses the whole thickness of the thin film battery is below 150 μm (50 μm for each Kapton® substrate, 10 μm for the nickel conductive layer) (see paragraph [0269]). The thickness of the current collector layer of 10 μm falls within and anticipates the claimed range of the current collector layer having a thickness between 10 μm and 20 μm. A skilled artisan would recognize this as an appropriate thickness of the current collector layer to achieve a thin film battery.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the battery of Chopra wherein the current collector layer obtained by printing or spray deposition has a thickness between 2 μm and 50 μm, as disclosed by Fedrici, in order to achieve a thin film battery.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYDNEY L KLINE whose telephone number is (703)756-1729. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ula Ruddock can be reached at 571-272-1481. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.L.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1729
/ULA C RUDDOCK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1729
Prosecution Insights